数学学生几何思维水平的流行模式群

J. Ordiz, Ghanine Rhea Mecate
{"title":"数学学生几何思维水平的流行模式群","authors":"J. Ordiz, Ghanine Rhea Mecate","doi":"10.22460/infinity.v11i1.p77-86","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Geometric thinking skills are the perceived abilities of an individual to think and reason in geometric contexts. These skills acquired by students in geometry remain poor and unsettling because of the misconceptions that hinder the students in learning the components of geometry. The study described the common unplaceable patterns in geometric thinking of 153 mathematics education students in a state university in Eastern Visayas, Philippines. Frequency Analysis was employed in the study to determine the number of occurrences of the patterns stressing the cause for students placed under level 0 or unplaceable. Van Hiele Achievement Test was used to gather the students’ performance in geometry at all levels, namely: visualization, analysis, informal deduction, deduction, and rigor. The findings attested that only 13.1% of the students managed the third level of the Van Hiele Levels while 43.1% of them were unplaceable. Common patterns were drawn and describe to understand the consequences in geometric thinking ability at level 0. These observable patterns were grouped into core-remedial, topical-corrective, and close-corrective groups. The clusters will enable educational institutions to address the individual gaps in geometry.","PeriodicalId":109878,"journal":{"name":"Infinity Journal","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CLUSTERS OF PREVALENT PATTERNS OF GEOMETRIC THINKING LEVELS AMONG MATHEMATICS STUDENTS\",\"authors\":\"J. Ordiz, Ghanine Rhea Mecate\",\"doi\":\"10.22460/infinity.v11i1.p77-86\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Geometric thinking skills are the perceived abilities of an individual to think and reason in geometric contexts. These skills acquired by students in geometry remain poor and unsettling because of the misconceptions that hinder the students in learning the components of geometry. The study described the common unplaceable patterns in geometric thinking of 153 mathematics education students in a state university in Eastern Visayas, Philippines. Frequency Analysis was employed in the study to determine the number of occurrences of the patterns stressing the cause for students placed under level 0 or unplaceable. Van Hiele Achievement Test was used to gather the students’ performance in geometry at all levels, namely: visualization, analysis, informal deduction, deduction, and rigor. The findings attested that only 13.1% of the students managed the third level of the Van Hiele Levels while 43.1% of them were unplaceable. Common patterns were drawn and describe to understand the consequences in geometric thinking ability at level 0. These observable patterns were grouped into core-remedial, topical-corrective, and close-corrective groups. The clusters will enable educational institutions to address the individual gaps in geometry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":109878,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infinity Journal\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infinity Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v11i1.p77-86\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infinity Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v11i1.p77-86","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

几何思维技能是个体在几何环境中进行思考和推理的能力。学生在学习几何时获得的这些技能仍然很差,而且令人不安,因为这些错误的观念阻碍了学生学习几何的组成部分。该研究描述了菲律宾东米沙鄢群岛一所州立大学153名数学教育学生的几何思维中常见的不可替换模式。在研究中使用频率分析来确定强调原因的学生被置于0级或不可放置的模式的出现次数。采用Van Hiele成就测验收集学生几何在可视化、分析、非正式演绎、演绎、严谨等各个层次的表现。调查结果表明,只有13.1%的学生完成了范海勒水平的第三级,而43.1%的学生无法完成。绘制和描述常见的模式,以了解0级几何思维能力的结果。这些可观察到的模式被分为核心矫正组、局部矫正组和密切矫正组。这些集群将使教育机构能够解决几何上的个别差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CLUSTERS OF PREVALENT PATTERNS OF GEOMETRIC THINKING LEVELS AMONG MATHEMATICS STUDENTS
Geometric thinking skills are the perceived abilities of an individual to think and reason in geometric contexts. These skills acquired by students in geometry remain poor and unsettling because of the misconceptions that hinder the students in learning the components of geometry. The study described the common unplaceable patterns in geometric thinking of 153 mathematics education students in a state university in Eastern Visayas, Philippines. Frequency Analysis was employed in the study to determine the number of occurrences of the patterns stressing the cause for students placed under level 0 or unplaceable. Van Hiele Achievement Test was used to gather the students’ performance in geometry at all levels, namely: visualization, analysis, informal deduction, deduction, and rigor. The findings attested that only 13.1% of the students managed the third level of the Van Hiele Levels while 43.1% of them were unplaceable. Common patterns were drawn and describe to understand the consequences in geometric thinking ability at level 0. These observable patterns were grouped into core-remedial, topical-corrective, and close-corrective groups. The clusters will enable educational institutions to address the individual gaps in geometry.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信